Friday, February 17, 2012

1. According to the former chief justice Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah, “The Federal Constitution lost its fundamental structure when Article 121 was amended in 1988 and the provision in reference to the judicial power in the constitution removed”.

2. What is the amendment about? It is about the procedure giving the Attorney General the responsibility for specifying which court should hear a case. Originally Section 418A (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code reads, “Notwithstanding the provision of section 417 and subject to Section 418B, the Public Prosecutor may in any particular case triable by a Criminal Court subordinate to a High Court issue a certificate specifying the High Court in which the proceedings are to be instituted or transferred and requiring that the accused person be caused to appear or be produced before such High Court”.

3. In December 1986 when Datuk Yap Peng was charged with criminal breach of trust, the public prosecutor issued a certificate under Section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring the case to be transferred to the High Court.

4. Datuk Yap’s counsel during the trial in January 6, 1987 (before the amendment) argued that the transfer was unconstitutional and that “Section 418A violated Articles 121 (1) and 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution”. The trial judge concurred.

5. The Public Prosecutor then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld by a 3:2 majority decision, the decision of the trial judge (read here).

7. Tan Sri Yeop Sani said, “Section 418A has been examined by the Courts on a number of occasions”. Clearly the courts in the past did not conclude that Section 418A was against the constitution. The practise of the AG transferring a case from a lower court to a higher court must have continued and regarded as part of procedure.

8. Salleh Abbas, giving his minority dissenting view said: “I cannot see how this power…could be regarded as an encroachment upon judicial power of the court. In my view, it is neither a judicial power nor an encroachment of that power”.

9. It was probably to make clear the situation and to restore the right of the AG that he decided to include the amendment to Article 121 (1) when the Constitution was to be amended to clarify the role of the Rulers in law-making.

10. I must admit that I did not seek clarification from the AG at that time and regarded this inclusion as not altering the judicial powers in any way. Before the amendment the AG had this power under the CPC. But it was the court which took away this power on the grounds that it violated Articles 121 (1) and 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution.

11. It is normal that whenever a law needs to be amended to facilitate the process of justice, then it would be amended. The Constitution was drafted by mere men and it cannot be perfect.

12. The rights and functions of the judiciary have not been subservient to the politicians or the Prime Minister before or after the amendment. This is because the amendment involves only the procedure in which the AG was given back the responsibility to transfer cases. It did not give the Prime Minister any authority to overrule the courts.

13. Tun Dzaiddin pointed out the case of the removal of Tun Salleh Abbas as Chief Justice as evidence that the judiciary is subservient to the Government.

14. In the first place I was not the one who wanted Tun Salleh to be removed. It was the request (command) of the Agong. I have already explained the circumstances involved in my memoirs.

15. There is provision in the Constitution for a judge to be removed. Neither the Agong nor the Prime Minister can dismiss him. A tribunal has to be set up and the case for dismissal heard.

16. All these procedures were followed to the letter. Two foreign judges were on the panel. The Panel decided on Salleh’s removal and not the Prime Minister or the Government. Simply because Salleh was removed in accordance with the Constitution does not mean the judiciary is subservient to the Government or the Prime Minister. If judges cannot be removed at all, the Constitution would say so. But the Constitution carries provision only for a judge to be removed.

17. I would like to know of instances, in the years Tun Dzaiddin was Chief Justice, when I had interfered with the courts in any way.

18. Perhaps Tun Dzaiddin might be able to tell more about lobbying for high judicial appointments. Malay adats have a very powerful role in the governance of this country.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Mr Alireza Forghani, Khamenei’s strategy specialist must of course be speaking for the Government of Iran and Ayatollah Khamenei when he puts in his website the Ayatollah’s “legal and religious justification for killing all Jews and annihilating Israel”.

You would like to believe that this threat is true. It would give Israel the excuse for taking the pre-emptive strike that you say it needs to do to secure Israel. You have to build a case for that dastardly act.

Between Iran and Israel, I believe Israel is more likely to carry out its threat. You have a record for doing this.

The world knows that Israel did carry out a pre-emptive strike to destroy Iraq’s nuclear facilities long before the war against Iraq.

The world knows that Iran has never carried out any pre-emptive strike against any other country. The world also knows that Israel’s satellite, the United States, financed Iraq to attack Iran. Israel bombed the Egyptian air force base without any declaration of war.

Israel breaks any law with impunity e.g. build settlements on Palestinian territory, build walls which divide Palestinian villages, blockade Gaza illegally, shoot and kill aid workers on a mercy mission in international waters, destroyed hospitals, schools and homes in Gaza, prevents construction materials from being sent to Gaza to rebuild homes, ran over Rachel Corrie, an American because she stood in the way of Israel bulldozers about to destroy a Palestinian home, and more.

Yes, all these you do to secure Israel and Israelis. Don’t others have any right to secure their people and their countries? You will say it is retaliation for attacks against Israel. Actually the Palestinians were retaliating against Israeli seizure of their lands, killing their people, arresting and detaining thousands of their people etc.

Israel is known to have more than 200 nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Israel uses phosphorous bombs and cluster bombs and together with America used depleted uranium in the bombs and missiles.

Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor any WMD. It was a lie and the world knows it. But Israel has nuclear plants in Rafael, Eelun and Nebrin. Then there is Dimona, nuclear centre in Naqeb which produces 90% of enriched uranium for Israel’s nuclear weapons.

With Israel’s history of pre-emptive strikes, invasion and occupation, Israel’s total disregard for international laws and the recent talks about taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities and Israel’s possession of nuclear bombs, shouldn’t Iran prepare itself for possible Israeli and US attack? Or are other people disallowed from preparing for their own defence.

Why is it that Israel is entitled to security but Iranians and everybody else should not be so entitled? Why is labelling all Muslims as terrorist permissible but any criticism of Israeli intransigence condemned as anti-Semitic?

Iranians may sound belligerent but they are not mad. They know that if they ever use nuclear weapons, Israel and the United States would wipe Iran off the face of the earth with the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the two countries.

Islam does not teach us to kill. But Islam says we have a right to defend ourselves if attacked. That is the true teachings of Islam.

But there are Muslims, as there are Christians and Jews, who make use of religion for their own purpose. They don’t represent their peoples or their religions.

I am a Muslim fundamentalist.

I adhere to the true teachings of Islam.

This is not a religious war between Islam and Judaism. It is a territorial war. When you seize other people’s land, you must expect attempts to recover it. Or do you think people must thank you for robbing them of their property?

DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD

p/s: This entry is in reply to a comment Hanan submitted to this blog on 2012/02/07 with the message and link;

Nothing to say about that? Isn’t this bothering the religion of peace followers?

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

1. I stopped using Proton cars after I stepped down. I wanted to enjoy the superior quality of the high-end European and Japanese cars.

2. Proton was known for its cheap cars. The assumption is that it can never produce cars of quality as represented by European, Japanese and even Korean cars.

3. The people at Proton are unhappy over this reputation. They feel it is wrong to think that they cannot produce high end cars. It is just that the company policy was to produce run-of-the-mill cars. The Malaysian public expect Malaysian cars to be cheap. Cheap cars just cannot have the quality and the features of the more costly imports.

4. Proton people want to show that given the support they can produce quality cars.

5. The other day I test drove their latest model on the test track at Shah Alam. I can verify and assure Proton customers and Malaysians generally that this new model can match any of the Japanese or European quality cars. It was such a pleasure to drive. A foreign friend who knows cars, tested the car and says it is up to the standard of the up-market cars from Europe.

6. This car uses hot press steel body which is stronger than cold press. It has a 1.6 liter turbocharged engine equal to a 2.0 liter engine power. The engine complies with Euro-five standards.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

1. The West i.e. the United States and Europe are deep in financial trouble.

2. Four European countries including United Kingdom and Italy have debts of more than 1 trillion dollars.

3. The Governor of the Bank of England has advised printing money to overcome Britain’s financial crisis. This is a great idea. When you lose money just print money to make up for the losses. The United States had printed 300 billion USD to bail out banks and overcome the crisis. Of course if Malaysia had printed Ringgits to pay off debts during the financial crisis we would be soundly condemned. No one would accept our Ringgit and we would be bankrupted. But rich countries apparently can print money to pay debts.

4. I was invited by Financial Times to comment on the European financial crisis. I wrote that their financial crisis is due to their living beyond their means.

5. Their wealth was not real because it is the result of gambling in the financial market. Believing that they were rich they paid themselves, including their workers very high salaries and bonuses.

6. But they did less and less work, limiting themselves to five days (35 hours) in a week. They enjoy long holidays. Working on holidays earns them double pay and quadruple for overtime.

7. They have unemployment benefits up to 90% of their previous pay.

8. Workers cannot be dismissed even if they don’t do any work.

9. Workers go on strike every now and then, or they work to rule.

10. Productivity is very low, which of course means their products are costly and cannot compete in the market.

11. The crisis they are facing today is the result of their living beyond their means.

12. Malaysia wishes to become a high-income economy. We are busy increasing wages and salaries. Already our labour cost is higher than all ASEAN countries except Singapore.

13. Growth comes from investments. When we are costly investors local or foreign will not invest.

14. But like the Europeans we are working less. We now work five days a week, adding 52 days to our national holidays numbering sixteen plus 52 Sundays.

15. We have now added more holidays including Wesak, Taipusam, Federal Territory Day, Awal Ramadhan, Nuzul Al Quran, Malaysia Day and numerous state holidays.

16. When the holiday falls on Sunday or Saturday we replace with Monday. This gives us three days holiday. We can take one day unrecorded leave on Friday and get four days holiday.

17. But sometimes two or three different holidays fall within one week. With a little arrangement one can extend it to one week or even nine days.

18. What it means is that we are working less days but our income (wages, pay) must be higher. The cost of producing goods or services is now higher. There is no evidence of increase in productivity. We are quickly falling into the trap into which the Europeans have fallen. And we are not even a developed country.

19. I may be wrong but I think we are headed for the kind of financial and economic crisis that the Europeans are in. Incidentally holidays bring death to thousands of travellers.